I didn't think that The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky could get any better and then it got turned into a film!
The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky (1999)
"It is the story of what it's like to grow up in high school. More intimate than a diary, Charlie's letters are singular and unique, hilarious and devastating. We may not know where he lives. We may not know to whom he is writing. All we know is the world he shares. Caught between trying to live his life and trying to run from it puts him on a strange course through uncharted territory The world of first dates, family dramas, and new friends. The world of sex, drugs, and The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where all you need is that perfect song on that perfect drive to feel infinite."
The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky published on February 1, 1999 is one of the most hauntingly beautiful books I've ever read. I first read it my senior year of high school when I suddenly fell into a slump. I was sort of feeling down about my group of friends, starting college and end of year woes. I read Perks because everyone always quotes it and I wanted to see what all the hype was about. At that time I had also learned Summit Entertainment was turning it into a film and I wanted to read the book before the film came out.
This book changed my life. I thought it then and I think it even more now, but I am Charlie. The way he thinks and writes are parallel to my own. I like to think that Charlie is writing it me and that makes me feel even closer to him. I know Charlie is a fictional character, but the way Chbosky wrote this book has me convinced that it has to be a true story or based on one of his friends' or personal experiences. If it's not, Chobsky is an even better writer than I thought.
When I first read The Perks of Being a Wallflower I was really paying attention to all the quotes people say so I wasn't really paying attention to the minor details. I missed some subtle indications of Charlie's life because of my shallowness. But when talking to one of my friends about Perks I realized what happened between Charlie and his Aunt Helen. Don't know how I missed it; I watch Law & Order: SVU religiously.
I decided to read The Perks of Being a Wallflower again because on most days I feel like Charlie, but especially when school starts. I'm already in college and Charlie will forever be starting high school in Perks, but I always feel like him when school starts. On my second read of Perks, I almost cried after during and before every paragraph. Everything that I missed the first time became so clear the second time. I almost cried all the time because the story is so sad and Charlie doesn't get it and it just hurts so much. But I love Perks forever. It's just a devastatingly beautiful haunting story. All the characters are messed up in their own way and still try to help each other. It's just so beautiful.
At this point, it's 2013, if you haven't read The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky yet you're not even alive right now.
(Image courtesy of IMDb)
The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) written by Stephen Chbosky
"An introvert freshman is taken under the wings of seniors who welcome him to the real world."
I saw The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) during my Christmas vacation of my second year of college. And I loved it. I think it was actually perfect. The cast was amazing, the writing echoed the novel and I felt infinite after. Logan Lerman as Charlie and Mae Whitman as Mary Elizabeth were the greatest casting decisions in film history.
The script is ninety-six pages compared to the two hundred thirteen pages of the novel. Chbosky took out some events that were in the novel. You would think that this would effect the story, but it didn't. Omitting some of the events that were in the novel helped the screenplay because the story becomes even more clear and not clouded with too much detail. In books you can have as much detail as you like, but in a script subtle details don't always come across and sometimes for the betterment of the story, they should be taken out.
Even though some events were taken out or reordered, Chbosky's skill for detail was still there. It can be tricky putting a lot of detail within the narrative lines of your script; one because it could make the script longer, but not help the story and two because the more detail, the more the screenplay looks like a prose. But Chbosky balances it out expertly.
The screen adaptation was WAY funnier than the novel. The book was so sad and everyone had their problems and couldn't deal with it. I'm mostly referring to how different Patrick was between the book and script. In the novel, Patrick is not as sarcastic and quick witted as he is in the script. I did like his wise cracks and smart answers; it fit well into the script because it wasn't all somber and sad. It was nice to laugh at some points as I read the screenplay because the book is so emotionally draining. On the other hand, there is a little part me that likes how emotional I get after reading Perks.
All the characters stayed the same except Charlie's older brother and sister, and her boyfriend got names. I'm not sure how I feel about it, even after all of this time. I guess they did deserve names, but in that case his parents should've gotten names too. Reading the script, I even discovered that Chbosky gave Charlie's family a last name, Kelmeckis. I think this got cut from the film because I don't remember hearing any characters say that name.
The situation with Charlie and his Aunt Helen was more clear in the screenplay. I liked how the viewer came to the realization at the same time Charlie did. Also, Charlie in the hospital was way more depressing in the book. In the script it was sad too, but the way it ended was not nearly as depressing as in the book. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but the ending of that situation was different. I won't tell you how or give any details though.
What I really liked about the screenplay was that Charlie didn't cry as much. In the novel it seemed every other sentence was Charlie crying. I thought it was a little over done because then when it really mattered and he cried, I wouldn't feel as deep a connection. It was a bit like crying wolf. In the screenplay, there was a beautiful build up to Charlie's crying (for when it mattered) and I felt a devastating connection that broke my heart.
I also liked it better, in the book, that Charlie's location was undisclosed and his anonymity was preserved. But to translate that into the film, I think it would've been a little more Fight Club (1999) and a little less making an original statement for this film adaptation.
I won't tell you if the ending was different. You'll just have to go see the film!
I would say to read the book first and then see the film. I also can't decided which I liked better; the novel or the film. Maybe the novel, if I really think about it.
P.S.: I wish someone would gift me a typewriter like Sam gave Charlie.
No comments:
Post a Comment